General trends of Europeanization studies

Evolution of European Studies shows soft transition from questions of how European integration is working to how it affects national policies. This is the core feature of Europeanization studies, which focuses on the domestic changes caused (or

18

supposedly caused) by European integration processes. “Europeanization can be characterized as different forms of diffusion processes of European ideas and practices across time and space” (Flockhart 2010, 788). In fact, there are quite many attempts to define this phenomenon (Olsen 2002), and from constructivists view “Europeanization is ‘what political actors make of it’” (Radaelli and Pasquier 2015). In this research I will apply Radaelli’s justification of Europeanization’s utility for IR researches:

‘Europeanization provides a theoretical lens on the effects of integration on domestic political structures’ (Radaelli 2006, 58). I must admit, that Radaelli speaks about more EU-centric Europeanization: “…the rules, procedures and policy paradigms are defined in the making of EU decisions and only afterwards incorporated into domestic discourses, identities and political structures” (Flockhart 2010, 789).

Most of researches in the field of Europeanization strive to understand its nature and outcomes, as well as impact on domestic politics and policies (Boerzel and Risse 2003; Olsen 2002; Radaelli 2003; Exadaktylos 2009). There are also studies of Europeanization effects in new EU member and candidate states (Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005; Sedelmeier 2006). It broadens the field of theorizing and forms a new branch of research. Focus of Europeanization is on social learning processes, adaptation and lesson-drawing (Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2005) The latter statement advocates the choice of cases of my research – whereas Finland is a member state of the EU, Norway is only a co-operative neighbor and voluntary participant of European policies.

As I have said above, the conceptualization of Europeanization is broad and covers wide range of phenomena. Olsen names five applications of the term, which depend on the focus of changes they cause. They are changes of external boundaries (often related to expansion of the EU), development of European institutions (with connection to collective actions, co-ordination), central penetration of national

19

governance (witnessed by division of powers and adapting national governance), export of forms of political organization (and this one covers relations with non-European countries) and a political unification project (Olsen 2002, 923–24). The latter one – a political unification project – is best applicable to my thesis. It represents not only a top-down perspective, but also leaves way to study how national states influence on European politics and policies.

Another useful typology of Europeanization is connected to the institutionalization of politics. Europeanization is defined as “the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance” (Cowles, Caporaso, and Risse-Kappen 2001, 3). This idea focuses on cross-level interactions, i.e.

Europeanization here takes place at European, national and global levels. There might be possible interpretations, however. I believe it is relevant for the research that both within-EU and EU-non-member states interactions are taken into consideration. This is also two-dimensional approach and allows downside-up perspective.

There can be other different approaches to Europeanization: researches of

‘cause-of-effects’ and ‘effects-of-causes’ (Exadaktylos and Radaelli 2009, 507), different notion of temporality, etc.

At the same time, youth policies do not belong to urgent European and national agendas. I cannot ignore the fact that this a very ‘liberal’ topic where national states are only advised to follow the recommendations of the EU. Despite the fact that in youth studies researches speak about “European Youth Policy” (for example, Siurala; Wallace C., Bendit R. 2011), there is still no coherent policy at the European level (and illustrates this comparison to CFSP or Environmental policy). One may then question the topicality of this research. Nevertheless, I state that tracing Europeanization in the field of youth is an extremely interesting example of ‘soft’ domestic changes. When the national states are not obliged to adapt their policies, but only advised, it will let me see

20

how Europeanization appears to them. Do the states voluntarily follow the recommendations? Are there signs of Europeanization at all? What are the interests of states when they co-operate in this field?

These questions explain why among different conceptualizations of Europeanization I stayed at those allowing two dimensions of process. The object of the research (youth policy) required consideration of its framework. Like widespread practice, my research examines ‘the goodness of fit’ (i.e. degree of institutional compatibility) between European, national and sub-national processes and institutions (Radaelli 2003, 40). Then, in order to understand the outcomes and institutional changes, it is useful to apply the notion of ‘goodness of fit’ (Boerzel and Risse 2003). It combines the following two ideas: The first one seems to reflect constructivist ideas.

Study of internalizing domestic norms and states’ commitment to the EU institutions (even identity fit); it touches upon how active the actors are, who sets the norms, how the political environment is at particular time. Second, referred to as rationalist institutionalism, is the study of opportunities that actors get within institutions, how the power and resources are distributed (Boerzel and Risse 2003, 58). In addition, I would like to stress that Europeanization here is different from “EU-ization” (which is only an important part of a broader phenomenon) (Flockhart 2010, 790). In methodological and conceptual aspect, Europeanization is about constitutive rules to create common space, and EU-ization – about regulative rules inside society. In other words, I will differ common rhetoric and behavior (Europeanization) and particular changes of structures, rules and norms (EU-ization focus).

Interest of my research is, consequently, in two dimensions of changes. One is how youth dimension is conceptualized: it focuses on the growing common vision and purposes of youth policy, and changing identities of youth. The other one is in the evolution of the political organization of policies: how co-operative action capacity

21

develops, what are its financial and institutional resources and governance, who are its actors (ibid., 788).